So neither gender is excused.

“A woman can be dressed in a Muslim burqa and some men will lust…” Oh come on. In fact, let’s dispense with the absurd. Fact is, males are stimulated sexually by the visual and when a woman dresses in a revealing way (visual stimulation)—that’s the problem. Can a man discipline himself and turn away? Yes! Job 31:1—“I have made a covenant with my eyes; how could I gaze [look of lust] at a young woman?” “Let your eyes look directly ahead, and let your gaze be fixed straight in front of you” (Prov.4:25). And he must turn away because “everyone who looks upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matt.5:28). Lust gives birth to sin and sin brings consequences that you don’t want (James 1:14-16).

By the way, the James passage concludes with, “Do not be deceived…” There is a lot of deception going on in the area of immodesty—and it’s evenly spread between the sexes. Both the men who look to “look” and the women who make it easy are at fault. It’s time for Christians to take a stronger stand on this subject—for moms and dads to “engage” parenting disciplines for dress with (1) themselves and with (2) their kids, and for elders and gospel preachers to challenge people with straight talk. Apparently some are not “connecting the dots” (or don’t want to).

Temptation is a Call to Battle

Today, men treat women like prostitutes.
Why not? Look at the way we dress!

Wendy Shalt, Return to Modesty

First, the Bible issues a plain call when it comes to sexual purity (Eph.5:3—there is to be no hint of sexual impurity; 1 Cor.6:18—“Flee!”; 1 Thess.4:3-5—“Control your body!”) God sets a standard for Christian purity and it’s a high standard.

Second, some women have little understanding of the intensity of the male sex drive—because they don’t have it. That’s why women fail to understand how the mere visual (often in passing) can trigger a male response. A walk past Victoria Secret’s in the Mall, the lingerie ads in the newspaper circular, female joggers, billboards, receptionists with low-cut blouses, beach volleyball, figure skating, Sports Illustrated (they illustrate more than Sports), etc. can place an image in the male mind that will be there for a long time. That’s the seductive world in which we live and it’s problematic for men who seek to keep themselves pure.

Third, we keep tripping over our maleness. Men tend to be (1) natural aggressors (90% of all crimes are committed by men), (2) are easily bored and seek sexual excitement, (3) have a strong sex drive (see Every Man’s Battle, pp.63-64 for physiology 101), and (4) receive sexual gratification through the eyes. In other words, it doesn’t take much of the visual for the male chemicals to kick in. Frankly, this is how God made us and He did so for a reason. God had procreation in mind (Gen.1:28) which requires one gender to be more of the aggressor-pursuer. With much given, however, much is required. God requires the male to be highly disciplined in the control of his sexual response. And God didn’t give us something we cannot control.

Winning the Battle (Males)

So, how do we win? Like the brave soldiers who landed on the beaches of Normandy, each day we storm the beach of sexual purity (2 Sam.23:9-10). Hence, the battle strategy—

• You have to decide to win. Holiness of thought is not a nebulous thing, but involves a series of choices. It is God who will give you the power to make good ones (2 Pet.1:3).
• Bounce your eyes. It’s not the first look that gets us into trouble, but the lingered look. Like “junk food” we find ourselves feasting on “junk sex.” Force your eyes to look elsewhere. It’s called “discipline.”
• Flee! Do whatever it takes to retreat. Joseph ran. “Flee!” is a strong word of action (1 Cor.6:18).
• Turn off sources you can control. That means the TV, computer, or anything that causes you trouble. Be proactive. You know your weak spots (Satan does, too). The consequences of sin call for extreme measures.
• Fight daily. Just because you win today is no guarantee that you will win tomorrow (or even this afternoon).

Men, God made us who we are and calls upon us to become men of discipline and wisdom. “Guard your hearts…” Why? Because what the mind feeds on, the body acts on.

Words to the Wise (Females)

Stop making it too easy for us to sin! While men have a role in this deal, so do you. The Bible says, “Rejoice in the wife of your youth…let her breasts fill you at all times…” (Prov.5:18-19). Want a clear commentary? It means you stop showing your cleavage to men who aren’t your husband. This is not about dressing attractively and fashionably. This is about dressing modestly and in a way that doesn’t call undue attention to self. Here it is: if you wear sexually stimulating clothing, it will create a sexually stimulated response. Low-cut blouses, short skirts, shorts that start rising above the knee, tight jeans, etc., -are specific areas of dress (or undress) that need to be ad-dressed! Come on, ladies! We see enough of that from people in the world. Give us an oasis at the assembly, a potluck, or wherever God’s people are found, where we can catch a break.

Women, save yourself for your husband. And, while so doing, save yourself for the Lord. Men—teach your sons to be respectful of women by setting the example of discipline yourself. If you gawk at women, so will he. Women—teach your daughters to dress in a way that will earn respect and then set the standard yourself.

God has called us out of the world and instructed us to be distinct. We need some Joseph-men. We need some “befitting women making claims of godliness” in their dress. Neither gender is exempt from responsibility, but both are challenged. All of which means, the next time you’re in your prayer-closet, you may want to first look around at some changes you need to make in your wardrobe. Hey men and women: Let’s dress like Christians are supposed to dress and work hard to keep our minds pure.

Welcome to the New Age of eastern-style mystical religion gone mainstream!

The hallmark of the 21st century “happening” church is comprised of various shades of Christian yoga and transcendental-style meditation. Gymnastics for Jesus and money under the pew is out, flickering candles and mantra prayers are in. Disguised under the lingo: contemplative prayer—which sounds innocent enough, but actually is a revision of ancient Buddhist monks who taught that prayer should involve concentrated breathing, visualization, and repetition of words. Transcendental Meditation has snuck in the back door.

And some of the biggest names in the evangelical world are signing on including Max Lucado, Beth Moore, and best-selling author and Focus on the Family guest, Dr. Henry Cloud. In the recently released Fox film, Be Still, all three lend approval to contemplative prayer.

Contemplative prayer (CP) is the act of going into the “Silence” (the term is often capitalized). It requires shutting down your mind by the use of words or phrases that are repeated over and over. It is into this silence that God supposedly speaks in a new and more profound way. Unlike biblical meditation (Ps.119:15) where we are taught to give our mind to Scripture, CP focuses on having a mystical experience with God separate from Scripture. Mysticism, however, has always been subjective and encourages followers to rely more on experience than biblical revelation in order to know God in a new way.

As more and more mainstream evangelical leaders jump on the CP bandwagon, look for more churches that claim Christ to do the same. On the march brethren are, after all, always a yoga step behind while seeking to imitate the more prominent mega-churches. I foresee yoga classes, youth groups prayer-chants, and more Be Still misinterpretations of Ps.46:10.

Ps.46:10—Be still and know that I am God—is a great verse. A study of the verse, however, shows it to be a rebuke from God to those who refuse to recognize His power while continuing to strive against His will. In fact some translations render it, “Cease striving” (NASB, ESV). In other words, don’t run ahead of God. Wait for Him and surrender to His will.

Is meditation (thinking about Scripture and spiritual things) important? Absolutely. Is finding one’s “prayer-closet” essential to a healthy Christian walk? Yes. Do we need to carve out more time for reading, reflection, and prayer? You know it. But is this something mystical and a way to a higher spiritual ream than man has known before? No.

The way to know God is simple—read His word, embrace it, pray without ceasing (you can do that in the quiet of your closet and in the craziness of your car), and be involved with a local community of others (God’s local church) who, likewise, have respect for His Son and the written message delivered and preserved by His Spirit.

It is obvious that the Scriptures are no longer viewed as sufficient when some go running after ancient practices of Buddhist monks in order to find a more exciting experience. Goodbye truth; hello feelings. Today, more than ever, we need to be on guard (2 Pet.3:16-17).

Celebrities Die in Threes

I’ve always heard that although in recent weeks celebrity deaths seem to be contagious.

• Ed McMahon—longtime pitchman for Johnny Carson and leading spokesman for Budweiser beer—deeply in debt and dead at the age of 86
• Farrah Fawcett—one of the original Charlie’s Angels and the sex symbol of the 70’s (she posed nude for Playboy), was married once, divorced, followed by several romantic relationships including actor Ryan O’Neal with whom she had a son our of wedlock—dead at age 62
• Michael Jackson—the King of Pop whose 1982 album, Thriller, is the best selling album of all time, and who was known for eccentric behavior, multiple pedophilia charges and addiction to prescription drugs—dead at age 50
• Billy Mays—full-volume pitch man for OxyClean and a host of other products not sold in stores (although they are sold in every other store in Pigeon Forge)—dead at age 50
• Steve McNair—popular retired NFL quarterback, married and father of four, carried on an extra-marital affair with a twenty-year-old waitress—shot by his girlfriend who suspected him of seeing someone else—dead at age 36

And so on (and on). By the time this piece finds its way into your hands, many others will be added. Should we not be surprised that larger-than-life celebrities die, too? Last time I checked, we all die (Heb.9:27)—including the rich and famous.

It is the reaction to celebrity deaths that concern me. For example, the blogs are rampant with emotional attachment to these people. Of Michael Jackson’s death—“A part of me has died, too,” “I have been crying and my tears won’t stop,” “I have been lying awake until 3:00 or 4:00 in the morning feeling sick and gutted,” “I feel isolated—like I lost my best friend…” It is both odd and sad.

First, I think it important to note that we should never make light of the death of anyone.  When someone makes the transition from now to eternity, it is cause for pause and sober reflection. There are two reactions, however, that become common in celebrity deaths:

1.  They become the best person that ever lived. Ungodly living is often glossed over as their death only magnifies their larger than life aura. And anyone who would dare point out sinful behavior that often leads to an early demise is vilified. One Facebook account posted that if anyone said one negative thing about Michael Jackson, they would be removed as a friend. A “friend” noted that since MJ’s death and funeral service at the Staples Center, nine U.S. soldiers had been killed in the Middle East with little media notice. He was removed as a friend. Others write about the ungodly: “Rest in peace.” Am I the only one who fails to understand what that means? How can anyone living immorally rest in peace?

2.  We mourn like we know them. I do not know any of these people—have never met them and have no relationship with them. Yet because we see them on television, we connect with them in an odd emotional way, and grieve at their passing as if we have lost a genuine friend.  The psychologists can decipher the why of it all, but there is no denying the reality of emotional attachments to the rich and famous.

We Get It Backwards

Here is the kicker: if we’re not careful, we expend more emotional energy to those we don’t know than to those we do. Take for example your church family. Every congregation of which I am aware is filled with problem people—people with problems, hurts, and heartaches. How much emotional energy do we give to them? These are not people we see in the movies, listen to their music, or throw touchdown passes, but are real folks with whom we worship and with whom we have a relationship. Their lives should touch and impact us. Do they?

And this: Are we bothered more by celebrity deaths than we are by the deaths of those who “die in the Lord” (Rev.14:13)? I’ve been to some funerals of godly older Christians that were barely attended by younger couples. Why? I am amazed at the callousness that we show our own brethren at times.

“I Don’t Know What to Say to People…”

Friend, join the crowd and get in line because I don’t either. I have learned over time, however, that what you say isn’t nearly as important as the fact that you showed up. There are many situation best served by golden silence (Eccl.3:7b). Just the fact that you are there to share your heart means more than anything you can say. And this: How can we claim to be like Jesus if we cannot weep with the hurting?

Here are things you can do—

• call ahead and take supper to a burdened family
• write down a meaningful Scripture on a piece of paper and ask them to put it in their pocket (Psalms 16:5, 30:5b, Rom.8:28; Eph.3:14-21, etc.)
• tell them you love them
• tell them that you mentioned their names and lifted them up before the Throne in prayer
• show up at the hospital—and make your visit brief
• send a hand-written note (the old fashioned kind with a stamp)
• weep with them—tears are God’s miniature messengers of love that transcend words

Jesus cared. A man’s man, He was moved by the plight of the hurting. His tears were real as He was willing to expend emotional energy to connect with folks like us. The saddest words I have ever heard are—“I’m afraid to love because I might get hurt.” Aren’t you glad Jesus wasn’t afraid to love? And He loved knowing He would get hurt—but did it anyway. Those who choose to distance themselves from hurting brethren miss out—they miss out on some of the greatest opportunities to serve and…they miss out on knowing the heart of Jesus.

Celebrity deaths do one thing for sure—they are a publicized reminder that we all die. Thus it behooves us to ready ourselves for the inevitable and, in the meantime, comfort those we know who experience loss and pain.

My greatest concern these days is for the current and future generation(s) who have little knowledge of the real issues that caused a divide among brethren during the last five decades.  Our children and grandchildren hear terms like “conservative” and “liberal,” “sound” and “progressive,” but have no idea what they mean. Labels, after all, can become mere words in the mind of the hearer and subject to the scruples and prejudices of the person using them.

Our young people, however, need to know about the real issues that have divided brethren and why not all churches claiming to be “of Christ” are in fact “of Christ.” In certain sections of the country, for example, where there is an abundance of churches of Christ, it is very easy for history to be lost and distinctions to become blurred. As a result, our children know there are differences, but they’re not sure what they are—except that they eat in the building and we don’t.

Elders Overseeing Too Much

Post World War II was a period of great growth among churches of Christ. Churches were moving from “the other side of the tracks” to greater visibility and respectability. There was a growing evangelistic fervor that fueled some churches to take on projects and programs larger than their ability to fund—national radio and TV programs along with foreign evangelistic campaigns. Larger churches appealed to smaller congregations to send them money so that they could “sponsor” the endeavor. The receiving eldership would “oversee” the project.

Some questioned this arrangement. Is it right for elders from one church to control funds for other churches (1 Pet.5:2; 1 Thess.1:8)? And, if one church’s leadership can delegate its funds to the control of another, could they not also delegate other aspects of their work? Where would that stop?

Some argued (and rightfully so) that if God didn’t require an individual to do more than his/her ability (1 Cor.16:1-2), the same principle would be true for churches. For example, if I shouldn’t ask other Christians for donations so that I can give more on the first day, then why should churches do the same—beg for money from other churches so they can spend more than their ability? Since when does God hold an individual or a church responsible for a work greater than their ability to perform?

The bottom line was clear: there was no Bible authority for a “sponsoring church” eldership in evangelism. Elders who presume to do more than their local work violate stated truths regarding the limitation of their oversight. It was wrong then and it still is.

Churches Funding Private Business

By 1960 most “Christian” colleges began to see churches as sources of revenue. Pressure was placed upon congregations to send monthly contributions to colleges like David Lipscomb, Abilene Christian, Freed-Hardeman, Harding, etc.—because, after all, those schools were providing youth with a Bible-based education. Once again, some objected. B. C. Goodpasture (editor of the Gospel Advocate and later the name-sake of a K-12 school in Madison, Tennessee) labeled those who were opposed to churches funding schools as “self-righteous snobs and radicals.” The popular G. C. Brewer said that any preacher who is anti-college-in-the-church-budget must be from the “kingdom of crankdom.” It is amazing that regardless of debate—political or religious—when one side or the other is without valid argumentation, rest assured the name-calling will commence. It deflects the issue and prejudices the hearer—and that is always its intent.

If Christians want to go into business together and run a school or a grocery store, what difference does it make? It doesn’t. What does make a difference is when brethren begin private business enterprises and then place such on the back of churches. It is not the work of the church to underwrite private business. It was wrong then and it still is.

At the same time that colleges were attaching themselves to churches, others were doing the same with humanitarian enterprises. The issue was never—do homes for orphans or the aged have a right to exist and/or do they perform legitimate functions. The issue was—do churches have a right to fund private businesses regardless of the good they do? There is an obvious difference between the church purchasing goods/services to fulfill God-given duties (paying an electric bill for the church building and/or paying a hospital bill for a needy saint) and underwriting private enterprises (making monthly contributions to the electric company and/or hospital).

In 2001 my wife and I opened a coffee shop—a dream come true (for her). Coffee, Cake, and Candles was a private business venture owned and managed by Christians. It provided a legitimate service, employed Christians, and serviced the community. Doors of opportunities for Bible studies as well as invites to customers and business connections were plenty. Question:  Was it right for us to appeal to churches to help finance our endeavor? You know the answer.  Yet the principle is no different when it comes to Christians running educational or benevolent businesses and asking churches to finance them. It was wrong then and it still is.

The Social Gospel is More Fun

The last half-century has also seen churches “of Christ” get involved in every kind of entertainment promotion you can think of. What began as “fellowship” halls to facilitate indoor potlucks during the winter months has evolved into family-life centers and gymnasiums complete with the latest workout equipment to exercise the whole man. In that regard, churches of Christ have kept pace with their Baptist neighbors in the promotion of the social gospel—with full-blown YMCA-type facilities.

The issue was not about “eating in the church building.” I am amazed at those who pack a lunch for a Saturday “workday,” but refuse to eat it inside the building. Of course, they eat it outside on the parking lot—which is hardly consistent. What people did years ago in horse-and-buggy days with dinner-on-the-ground (or inside during winter months) violated nothing. Sure, they had houses to eat in (1 Cor.11:22), but they were a long way from those houses. The purpose of gathering was to worship while their eating and socializing was incidental and natural to their coming together. What is interesting (and as inconsistent as the point made above) is the attempt of those today that seek to justify gymnasiums, youth parties, and every kind of entertainment to the “dinner-on-the-ground” days of yesteryear. It is hardly comparable. The social gospel—it was wrong when churches began to turn in that direction and it still is.

Last time I checked Scripture, God’s church is on a spiritual quest. Our mission is higher and nobler than recreation and entertainment (Rom.14:17). There is a place for that and God has well suited another institution (the home) for its provision. Believe it or not, churches can function biblically in today’s world and grow without the add-ons of man. True, the Lord’s people will never appeal to the mega-church crowd in search of one-stop, baby-sitting, teen entertaining, adult feel-good religion of positive thinking. But to those in search of spiritual truth and application, to those who long for a place where kids can learn the stories and morals of the Bible, and to those who seek to worship according to Scripture and with great passion and emotion—there is such a place. It’s called the New Testament church of Jesus Christ.

Do Your Kids Understand?

What will the next fifty years bring? I venture to say that many churches will continue to advance culture above Scripture with (1) more women in leadership, (2) instrumental music, and (3) worship on Saturday nights. It’s coming slowly—but surely. In the meantime, it is essential that we help our children understand that the questions and concerns are real. Please do not allow them to blur the distinction between the church belonging to Christ and “the church of Christ denomination.” There is too much at stake.

And there arose a generation after them who did not know the Lord. (Judges 2:10)

I am concerned about young people. I am concerned that some, at the most impressionable age of life, are taken in by those feeding on a natural youthful disdain for authority—and segway that into an environment of disrespect for biblical authority—from instrumental music (“swallowing camels”) to abuses with the Supper (“they eat bread, drink a bit, eat more bread, drink a bit more . . .”), to very loose blogs about drinking (“only drinking in excess is forbidden” in Scripture).

Over the past few months I have read blog after blog on pleonast (an Internet blog site for young Christians) and have been amazed at the lack of respect for God’s authority. And that’s what it’s all about. Do we do things out of man-tradition (“c of C tradition”) or out of respect for biblical teaching?

Some things are man-traditional. Just because a group does something different does not make it wrong. Much of what occurs when God’s people assemble involves human judgment and tradition. Let us not be so bound by man-tradition that we fail to see it for what it is. On the other hand, it is imperative that we recognize and respect God’s tradition (“patternism”—as one blog writer described it sarcastically). When Paul wrote the Thessalonians he reminded them of the necessity of adhering to Heaven’s “patternism”—“Brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us” (2 Thess. 2:15). The admonition to respect apostolic authority is binding on every church that is of Christ.

The argument that “we just do a few things differently” is a smokescreen. It’s not about things done differently (from man’s tradition) but a disrespectful attitude for apostolic teaching.

For example, when women address the assembled church at the Lord’s Supper, I believe that is sinful. To argue that it is the same as a Bible class is a misnomer. First, the Supper is to be taken when the church has come together (1 Cor. 11:20, 33–34). Second, when the church is together, the women are not to speak (lead the assembly). Paul was plain. The idea of dividing into groups and discussing the Memorial and then appointing spokesman/woman to address the church mimics the meanderings of John Mark Hicks (Come to the Table) more than anything else.

It centers on one thing: respect for authority. The disdain expressed by some toward CENI (command, example, necessary inference) is amazing. I have asked for an alternative to understanding biblical authority, but none has been forthcoming. Nor will it be. If CENI is to be rejected, how do you determine the following practices are wrong: 1) praying to Mary, 2) sprinkling for baptism, 3) dancing in the assembly, 4) pizza on the Lord’s Table, etc.? If there is a better way to determine what God wants us to do, what is it?

I’ve asked these writers to help us see what the real problems are. They have done their work well. Please read carefully and with an open mind. Thanks . . .